pasturage. Afterwards the Abbot repaired it so that it requires nothing
further, and people can quite well pass over it. Therefore as to the
present repair of the bridge the Abbot is acquitted, but he is to be
amerced because he did not repair it before.

"The jury also present that the present Prior of Bridlington erected a
sheepfold at Newland in the forest, 100 feet long and 12 feet broad,
injuring thereby the Lord's deer, notwithstanding that on another occasion
at the last Eyre of the Justices the sheepfold was ordered to be taken
down. By what right they know not. The Prior appears and prays to be
allowed to compound with the Lord, and that he and his successors may rent
the sheepfold in perpetuity, inasmuch as it no longer injures the deer.
Since the foresters, verderers, and regarders prove that it is so the
Prior is permitted to compound by the payment of 13s. 4d. (surety Ralph de
Morton), and he is likewise given a grant for ever of the sheepfold at a
yearly rent of 6d. at Michaelmas. The Prior is to hold it for ever quit of
regard. The jury also present that the bridge and road of Pul within the
forest, which are common highways for carriages, carts, drifts, and
packsaddles are in such bad repair that none can pass over them. The Prior
of the Hospital of St John, by reason of his tenure of lands which
formerly belonged to the Knights Templars, and the Prioress of Yedingham,
are bound to repair and maintain them. They are summoned. The Prioress
appears in person, the Prior by his attorney, Walter de Trusseley. The
Prioress says that neither she nor any of her predecessors ever from
ancient time repaired or ought to repair it, because she says that the
Prior, by reason of his tenure of the lands which belonged to the
Templars, is bound to repair and maintain the bridge and road as often as
need requires, in the same way that the Templars, before the abolition of
their Order, from ancient time, by reason of their tenure of their lands
at Foulbridge, which the Prior now holds, repaired and maintained the
bridge and road. She asks that an inquiry may be directed." The Prior, by
his attorney, denies most of the charges seriatim, but the judgment of the
Court is that "the Prior be distrained to compel him to repair and make
good the bridge and road to the east, and is to be amerced because he has
not done it sooner, and the Prioress is to be acquitted because the road
to the west of the bridge is not at present out o